MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor

[chris_1001]

It is now.

Actually the system wont let you efa-10 it unless you specify a barrel length of at least 16 inches.

Pick a future length!

I want to do another SBR. But unless it’s approved (form 1), I cannot pre “register” it under 16.1”.

If I do, ass pounding prison time.

This is a legit issue

 

[Bodhisattva]

2Ahotline.com: FPC Legal Action Hotline - Submit a Report

The primary objective of the Hotline and our legal action programs is to find legally-significant issues and bring cases that defend and advance fundamental rights and individual liberty.

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[HKTony45]

What in the actual f@ck. ?!

 

[VTski4x4]

Yeah, this is what concerns me. Technically we were legally in possession of those things until this new law passed. The 2016 enforcement notice was not a law itself, this new bill just codifies its language as law. I don't see how they can apply that retroactively but IANAL.

They can't. They can stack up or f off. Guida is offering terrible legal advice. Do what you want until 8/1, and after that date, work through the loopholes. Loose lips sink ships.

 

[CrackPot]

Pick a future length!

I want to do another SBR. But unless it’s approved, I cannot pre “register” it.

This is a legit issue

Not sure what problem you are trying to solve by pre registering (since we don’t have registration). Lawfully possessed by 8/1/24 is all that matters for grandfathering. No requirement to FA10, just lawful possession

 

[chris_1001]

Not sure what problem you are trying to solve by pre registering (since we don’t have registration). Lawfully possessed by 8/1/24 is all that matters for grandfathering. No requirement to FA10, just lawful possession

Just a sbr build.

If it’s not in sbr configuration with a tax stamp, can I fa-10 it or (cough) register it prior to the issuance of the stamp

 

[Picton]

Pick a future length!

I want to do another SBR. But unless it’s approved (form 1), I cannot pre “register” it under 16.1”.

If I do, ass pounding prison time.

This is a legit issue

 

[LakeTrout]

Just so I understand… this thread is mostly comprised of people who currently have guns. People who are wondering how this law is going to impact their ability to continue to possess these guns. It’s almost like we’re forgetting why we have guns in the first place. If you think it’s for punching holes in paper…. Just hand them over I guess. Literally I don’t care. And if you’re a LEO reading this, I hope you’re thinking “yes, this guy gets it” because the alternative is stacking up. Good luck

Edit to add: in all seriousness I appreciate crackpot and others for the insights

I’ll just say unrelated to this current situation. And not as someone who supports whatever is implied here. One of the reasons I support this bill and wanted it to pass was that psychologically It’s a weird thing to observe.

Everyone in the room has always been like “oh f***ing f*** ya bitches we got these god damn things cause this is what protects everything else and without these things we wouldn’t have anything else so f***ing boooom!” And then literally soccer moms are like “okay well we make it so you can’t have those things then”. And everyone’s like “Oh damn…..we didn’t think of that. Shit. You got us. You made the things illegal? Damn. Okay. We won’t have those things any mores.”

I’m not criticizing that or suggesting anything else should be the proper reaction. I’m just saying it’s really interesting to watch.

 

[teej1074]

Different dates for different purposes.

9/13/94 is still true preban and preban firearms are still good to go as they always were

8/1/24 grandfathers any gun LAWFULLY possessed by a LTC holder or MA Dealer. So your AWB (1994/1998 AWB) compliant rifle thst you owned lawfully before 8/1 remains lawful. All post 8/1 need to be compliant with the new ASW definition

6/20/16 is a cut off for “not a copy or duplicate” in the ASW definition. The only way this matters is if Healey was law so post 6/20/16 copies or duplicates would be deemed not lawfully possessed. But that language also says “registered” which is not a thing so a mess at all levels.

New LTC holder and not steeped in the history, but just wanted to add to this:

The 6/20/16 cut-off is located in Section 16(f). Section 16 establishes a new definition of "assault-style firearm". 16(f) is a carve-out that says copies or duplicates owned/"registered" before 6/20/16 are not "assault-style firearms". Cool, good to know I guess?

Section 131M states that no one shall possess/own/sell/transfer/etc... an "assault-style firearm", excluding those "assault-style firearms" that are lawfully possessed/"registered" by an owner with an LTC on 8/1/24. Pre 6/20/16 copies/duplicates are not "assault-style firearms" in this bill, so Section 131M does not even apply to those... they don't meet the new definition.

It's confusing because they never explicitly say post-Healey purchase/ownership of copies or duplicates is lawful. But they also do not state otherwise... for reasons I believe CrackPot and others have outlined. It seems like they really wanted to but knew it was shaky ground.

Wife is attorney and agreed (but not 2A attorney so take with grain of salt).

 

[CrackPot]

Just a sbr build.

If it’s not in sbr configuration with a tax stamp, can I fa-10 it or (cough) register it prior to the issuance of the stamp

Stop worrying about fa10s. They are not part of the equation. Do you lawfully possess the serialized component? That should be enough. If paranoid build into a rifle. Remember, they have to prove you did not lawfully possess. Since the serialized portion was transferred to you before 8/1 they can’t prove anything.

 

[chris_1001]

Stop worrying about fa10s. They are not part of the equation. Do you lawfully possess the serialized component? That should be enough. If paranoid build into a rifle. Remember, they have to prove you did not lawfully possess. Since the serialized portion was transferred to you before 8/1 they can’t prove anything.

This is why we love you.

We need to have a logical person to analyze all this bs.

Thank you!!!!!!

 

[souper]

Submitting an FA10 for your build is an opportunity to give the middle finger to the state while proving time of possession. Seems like a win win.

Applying for an SBR accomplishes both as well.

 

[maltc]

It’s only Appendix A, not all pre-94.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vw/appendix-a-guns-list.pdf

So wait- this list appears to be from 2016…

I need further clarification here. Every single FFL in state has been able to sell pre bans (lets just exclusively say Colt for instance).

I mean I know an FFL that goes by the books on absolutely everything. Colt is however not on that list….

How is that possible? These FFL’s follow the law to a T vast majority of the time.

What am I misinterpreting?

 

[not new guy]

So pre-8/1 guns that were lawfully possessed can’t be AWs, which means you may as well unpin stocks? Or does some other aspect of existing law prevent that?

 

[william_munny]

New LTC holder and not steeped in the history, but just wanted to add to this:

The 6/20/16 cut-off is located in Section 16(f). Section 16 establishes a new definition of "assault-style firearm". 16(f) is a carve-out that says copies or duplicates owned/"registered" before 6/20/16 are not "assault-style firearms". Cool, good to know I guess?

Section 131M states that no one shall possess/own/sell/transfer/etc... an "assault-style firearm", excluding those "assault-style firearms" that are lawfully possessed/"registered" by an owner with an LTC on 8/1/24. Pre 6/20/16 copies/duplicates are not "assault-style firearms" in this bill, so Section 131M does not even apply to those... they don't meet the new definition.

It's confusing because they never explicitly say post-Healey purchase/ownership of copies or duplicates is lawful. But they also do not state otherwise... for reasons I believe CrackPot and others have outlined. It seems like they really wanted to but knew it was shaky ground.

Wife is attorney and agreed (but not 2A attorney so take with grain of salt).

This actually makes sense. So by this interpretation, pre-94 and pre-2016 firearms are still transferable, but you're stuck with everything not exempt from the ASW definition. Which is still lame.

 

[VTski4x4]

So pre-8/1 guns that were lawfully possessed can’t be AWs, which means you may as well unpin stocks? Or does some other aspect of existing law prevent that?

If you had never done compliance work, then how could you "lawfully" own it ...... see how technical you have to get with this shit

 

[wildwest]

Guns? What Guns? I'm on the wrong forum. You mean to tell me NES isn't about the Nintendo Entertainment System?

 

[souper]

This actually makes sense. So by this interpretation, pre-94 and pre-2016 firearms are still transferable, but you're stuck with everything not exempt from the ASW definition. Which is still lame.

You can still transfer post 2016 rifles.

 

[teej1074]

This actually makes sense. So by this interpretation, pre-94 and pre-2016 firearms are still transferable, but you're stuck with everything not exempt from the ASW definition.

No... I think you can still sell/transfer actually. Section 131M(b) says all of 131M(a) does not apply to those possessed before or on 8/1/24 by an LTC owner.

Section 131M(a) says no one shall do xyz (buy/sell/possess) with an assault-style firearm, but then (b) says that does not apply to pre-8/1/24 assault-style firearms. Maybe there's language elsewhere in the bill that says otherwise, but I haven't seen it.

 

[Veesionary]

MaroonedinMA said:
Even the GOAL Summary appears to confuse the issue by mentioning only "Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. with no mention of the 8/1/date.

In fairness to GOAL, their summary is indicated as partial, and only got to Section 51 this evening. The 8/1/24 date is in Section 71.

 

[The_Chuck88]

Soooo will private sales of grandfathered guns be legal after this becomes law?

 

[spt_1955]

It’s only Appendix A, not all pre-94.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vw/appendix-a-guns-list.pdf

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. The pre-94 language has not changed and it includes replicas and duplicates. This language was taken DIRECTLY from the 1994 Federal AWB (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) and put into MA law in September 1993. It did not have a sunset clause in it and has remained in effect since that time even though the Federal AWB sunset in 2004.

It states (and always has) :

(iv) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of such firearms, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

 

[william_munny]

This is why I drink.

 

[MAJoe]

So wait- this list appears to be from 2016…

I need further clarification here. Every single FFL in state has been able to sell pre bans (lets just exclusively say Colt for instance).

I mean I know an FFL that goes by the books on absolutely everything. Colt is however not on that list….

How is that possible? These FFL’s follow the law to a T vast majority of the time.

What am I misinterpreting?

This list is from 1993. The current law says “No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994”. That piece regarding assault weapon is removed in the new legislation. It’s now 8/1/24.

 

[MAJoe]

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. The pre-94 language has not changed and it includes replicas and duplicates. This language was taken DIRECTLY from the 1994 Federal AWB (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) and put into MA law in September 1993. It did not have a sunset clause in it and has remained in effect since that time even though the Federal AWB sunset in 2004.

It states (and always has) :

(iv) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of such firearms, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

Yes. See my reply above this. In the current law, 131M exempts all pre-94 rifles from the definition. That goes away and it’s now 8/1.

 

[not new guy]

If you had never done compliance work, then how could you "lawfully" own it ...... see how technical you have to get with this shit

But if you did do compliance work it was lawful.

 

[not new guy]

That’s a pretty shitty take by Guida.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

.

Soooo will private sales of grandfathered guns be legal after this becomes law?

If it does you can bet your ass you will be seeing Aero uppers on Anderson Lowers in the classifieds for 5k

 

[pastera]

I guess I don't understand the difference if there is currently no registry as it stands

Stop being obtuse - the moron legislature doesn't care about the difference between a gun registry or the transaction registry.

If its on an FA-10, paper or electronic, it is registered.

Too many people shitting up the thread with stupid shit of how does this effect me - STFU, hunker down and open up the wallet for the fight.

I'm tired from lack of sleep and tired of pants-shitters looking for their own personal exemptions - stand together or fall individually.

 

[pastera]

That’s a pretty shitty take by Guida.

It seems accurate from my layperson's reading.